NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 1985-03.6OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/03/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager "Express Yourself Company" P.O. Box 2357 Anderson, IN 46018
Dear Mr. Benfield:
Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1985, concerning state regulations that might affect a product you are considering. You explained that your product would fit inside the rear window of a vehicle. While we do not have information on state laws, I can explain the possible effect of Federal law on your potential product. I suggest you contact vehicle safety officials in the states in which you plan to sell your product to learn of their laws.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of the standard is enclosed. If your product is mounted on, rather than inside, the rear window, it could be affected by Standard No. 205.
The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or dealer places your product on the rear window in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problems of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor safety standard....
Thus no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add material to the glazing materials of a motor vehicle, if that material would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205.
Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any material they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that material would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. If your product is not mounted on the window itself, it still may be affected by our standards. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle.
Thus, if your product were mounted inside the rear window of a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer at the time of its sale, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard 111. Just as with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) would apply to the installation of your product in used vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops. Thus, if your product is mounted inside the rear window and its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, an outside passenger side mirror would have to be installed. Again, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not limit the actions of individual vehicle owners. If you have further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures
"EXPRESS YOURSELF COMPANY" P.O. Box 2357 ANDERSON, IN 46018
April 12, 1985 TO U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Sirs;
We are currently doing Research & Development work on a new product that will fit inside the rear window of a vehicle.
Can you supply us with any information on the law in each State concerning Car rear windows or any state legislation concerning automobile rear windows?
THANKS for your time and any help you can give us.
Sincerely yours, Don Benfield Sales Manager |
|
ID: nht87-1.97OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/04/87 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: BRUCE W. SMITH -- PRESIDENT UNIT CORPORATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/12/87 TO JONES; FROM BRUCE W. SMITH TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your letter, in which you sought this agency's "recommendation" on one of your new products. The product in question is a sun visor intended to be used on rear-facing toddler seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. This agency has promulgated the Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority granted by Congress in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). In the case of your sun visor, the only safety stan dard with which you would be concerned is Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor veh icle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories, such as your sun visor, may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperat ive ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." There are two elements of design incorporated in child restraints in compliance with Standard No. 213 that might be affected by adding your sun visor. First, all child restraints are required to incorporate resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of St andard No. 213 specifies: "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302." I have also enclosed a copy of 2 Standard No. 302 for your information. Second, child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injur ies during crashes. If the installation of your sun visor would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection designed into a child restraint to which the visor is attached, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair busi ness installing the visor would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation of section 108. Since child restraint owners are not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), they are not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flamma bility resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you to voluntarily ensure that your sun visor would not render any such elements inoperative. Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture the child restraint sun visor for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 141 1-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your sun visor had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of th e defect and either: 1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or 2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. Whichever of these options were chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to hear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge owners of the visor for the remedy if the visor were first purchased less than eight year s before the notification campaign. I would also like to make clear that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to such products. It is up to the potential manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product. 3 If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. ENCLOSURES Sincerely, |
|
ID: 1985-03.9OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/05/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Ms. Melinda Maggs TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Ms. Melinda Maggs 243 Washington Ave. Scotia, New York 12302
Thank you for your March 25, 1985, letter asking about Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that might affect an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. You described your product as a pad to cushion safety belts. The pad, which is removable, is made of 1/4 inch foam and is attached with velcro to the safety belt. I regret the delay in our response.
You first asked for confirmation of information received in a phone conversation with Paul Bauer of this office. As Mr. Bauer explained, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may affect the sale of your product. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Act for your reference. That section provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not render inoperative any safety device installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. Since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208 and 209, those types of businesses may not install any other products which would impair the effective operation of the belts. Individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment, without risk of violating the "render inoperative" provision.
I should emphasize that we are unable to offer any opinion on whether your product would impair the effectiveness of safety belts. We do recommend that manufacturers carefully consider that possibility before placing their products on the market. You also asked whether any Federal regulations relating to material content and flammability affect your product. Although no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards directly govern material content, Standard No. 302 does provide flammability requirements for components of new vehicle occupant compartments, including safety belts. Thus, your product would need to meet the flammability standard if it was installed as original equipment in new vehicles. Standard No. 302 would not apply directly to your product if it is sold only as aftermarket equipment. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, discussed above, could affect your product as it relates to the flammability standard. NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Again, this provision prohibits only manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from installing such products; it does not prohibit consumers from purchasing and installing those products on their own. Again, we are not offering any opinion as to whether your product would meet those flammability standards, but we recommend that you consider that aspect.
The agency believes that all Federal motor vehicle safety standards are important and that all manufacturers should strive to meet those standards, whether required by law or not. Additionally, if noncomplying pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, a manufacturer might face possible product liability consequences under state law. Likewise, a manufacturer might face product liability consequences if its product impaired the effectiveness of the safety belts. You may wish to consult a local attorney in this regard to discuss your product.
I am enclosing copies of Safety Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 302. We appreciate your interest in devices which may encourage safety belt usage, and I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
Enclosures
March 25, 1985
Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Auth. 400 7th Str. S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to confirm information given to me from your office on the phone today. I called asking about possible regulations regarding accessory items sold for us in automobiles. I am a manufacturer of a product that will be used as a pad to cushion seatbelts. It is attached with velcro, is made of 1/4" foam and velcro (808 cotton 208 polyester), and is completely and easily removable. It will be sold in stores to the general public. I was told by your office staff there is a regulation stating car manufacturers and dealers cannot render inoperative any part of the car, but when an individual does after a car is purchased regarding accessory items such as this is their choice.
I would appreciate a prompt reply in writing to confirm this regulations interpretation and a copy of the specific regulation. I am also interested in knowing if there are any regulations regarding material content. Are there restrictions on types of material used for flammability anything else we need to know before we sell this product? Thank you for your interest in this matter. Sincerely,
Melinda Maggs |
|
ID: nht94-4.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 4, 1994 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Ashpy Lowrimore -- Senior Vice President, Southern National Bank, Florence, SC TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/11/94 letter from Ashpy Lowrimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 10267) TEXT: This responds to your August 11, 1994 letter regarding our requirements for school vehicles. You explain that your church owns a "commercial bus" and a 15-passenger van and would like to use these vehicles to transport children attending a kindergarten and after school care program that the church operates. You ask to be advised of any requirements applicable to those two vehicles, and have three questions, which I will answer below. I would like to begin with background information about our requirements. Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school vehicles. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVS S's) issued under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our agency was directed by Congress in 1974 to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons and sold for pupil transportation purposes. Under our requirements, such a vehicle is a "school bus," and any person selling such a vehicle must ens ure that the new vehicle is certified as meeting the FMVSS's for school buses. The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These "regulations" are actually recommendations from NHTSA to the States for use in developing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Progr am Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), applies to school vehicles, and contains recommendations for the design, identification and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Guideline N o. 17 as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Can we transport children who are related with our various schools by utilizing the van? ANSWER: The answer depends on State law, because the States regulate the use of motor vehicles, not NHTSA. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Any person selling a new bus or a new 15-passenger van to your church for purposes that include transporting kindergarten students to and from school or related events must sell buses that meet our FMVSS's for school buses, or face substantial civil fines and injunctive sanctions. NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate vehicle user s, and thus does not mandate what vehicle can be used to transport school children. Thus, our regulations impose no requirement on schools that require them to transport students in complying school buses. While NHTSA does not require the use of any particular type of vehicle to transport students, we believe that school buses are the safest motor vehicle transportation currently available. We have included in Guideline No. 17 a recommendation that States require any bus (or van carrying 11 or more persons) used to carry school children to comply with all FMVSS's applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture (see, recommendation number IV.B.1.h). However, since Guideline No. 17 will affect your church's school vehicles only if South Carolina has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of the school vehicles in question. Mr. Perry Brown, Deputy Director of South Carolina's Office of a Highway Safety Programs, would be able to provide information about your State's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address: Mr. Perry Brown Edgar A. Brown State Office Building 1205 Pendleton St., Rm. 453 Columbia, SC 29201 2. Are there restrictions associated with the use of the bus in the transportation of children, young adults or senior adults? As explained above, NHTSA has no restriction on the use of motor vehicles. Restrictions on the use of a vehicle are matters of State law. Among other things, the State could require a special driver's license for persons operating buses as you described . A South Carolina official would be able to provide the information you need. 3. If there are special restrictions, can you elaborate on the type of equipment that we must obtain in order to meet any regulations or requirements that are in place? ANSWER: Again, NHTSA has no restrictions on the use of the vehicles by the church. Further, NHTSA does not require schools operating their vehicles to ensure that the vehicles are specially identified or equipped as school vehicles. However, Guideline No. 17 contains recommendations for identifying school buses and equipping them with safety equipment, including school bus lamps and mirrors and emergency equipment. South Carolina may have adopted some of these recommendations in its highway safety pr ogram for school vehicles. In summary, NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate the use of school vehicles owned and operated by your church. You should check with South Carolina officials to find out which, if any, State requirements apply to your church's activities. We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 10267Open October 4, 1994 Mr. Ashpy Lowrimore Senior Vice President Southern National Bank P.O. Box 6676 Florence, SC 29502 Dear Mr. Lowrimore: This responds to your August 11, 1994 letter regarding our requirements for school vehicles. You explain that your church owns a "commercial bus" and a 15-passenger van and would like to use these vehicles to transport children attending a kindergarten and after school care program that the church operates. You ask to be advised of any requirements applicable to those two vehicles, and have three questions, which I will answer below. I would like to begin with background information about our requirements. Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school vehicles. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our agency was directed by Congress in 1974 to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons and sold for pupil transportation purposes. Under our requirements, such a vehicle is a "school bus," and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the new vehicle is certified as meeting the FMVSS's for school buses. The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These "regulations" are actually recommendations from NHTSA to the States for use in developing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR 1204 (copy enclosed), applies to school vehicles, and contains recommendations for the design, identification and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Guideline No. 17 as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Can we transport children who are related with our various schools by utilizing the van? ANSWER: The answer depends on State law, because the States regulate the use of motor vehicles, not NHTSA. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Any person selling a new bus or a new 15- passenger van to your church for purposes that include transporting kindergarten students to and from school or related events must sell buses that meet our FMVSS's for school buses, or face substantial civil fines and injunctive sanctions. NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate vehicle users, and thus does not mandate what vehicle can be used to transport school children. Thus, our regulations impose no requirement on schools that require them to transport students in complying school buses. While NHTSA does not require the use of any particular type of vehicle to transport students, we believe that school buses are the safest motor vehicle transportation currently available. We have included in Guideline No. 17 a recommendation that States require any bus (or van carrying 11 or more persons) used to carry school children to comply with all FMVSS's applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture (see, recommendation number IV.B.1.h). However, since Guideline No. 17 will affect your church's school vehicles only if South Carolina has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of the school vehicles in question. Mr. Perry Brown, Deputy Director of South Carolina's Office of Highway Safety Programs, would be able to provide information about your State's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address: Mr. Perry Brown Edgar A. Brown State Office Building 1205 Pendleton St., Rm. 453 Columbia, SC 29201 2. Are there restrictions associated with the use of the bus in the transportation of children, young adults or senior adults? As explained above, NHTSA has no restriction on the use of motor vehicles. Restrictions on the use of a vehicle are matters of State law. Among other things, the State could require a special driver's license for persons operating buses as you described. A South Carolina official would be able to provide the information you need. 3. If there are special restrictions, can you elaborate on the type of equipment that we must obtain in order to meet any regulations or requirements that are in place? ANSWER: Again, NHTSA has no restrictions on the use of the vehicles by the church. Further, NHTSA does not require schools operating their vehicles to ensure that the vehicles are specially identified or equipped as school vehicles. However, Guideline No. 17 contains recommendations for identifying school buses and equipping them with safety equipment, including school bus lamps and mirrors and emergency equipment. South Carolina may have adopted some of these recommendations in its highway safety program for school vehicles. In summary, NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate the use of school vehicles owned and operated by your church. You should check with South Carolina officials to find out which, if any, State requirements apply to your church's activities. We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:10/4/94
|
1994 |
ID: nht92-9.50OpenDATE: January 15, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: William E. Kenyon -- Mr. K's Original Headsaver, Patented Restraint Systems TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 from William E. Kenyon to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6670) TEXT: This responds to your letter regarding a head restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affidavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be "federally approved as an after-market safety product." As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR S571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information. The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114... With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its VEHICLE complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product. Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code. In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202. Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Attachments NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. Copy of Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. (Attachments omitted) |
|
ID: 3277yyOpen William E. Kenyon Dear Mr Kenyon: This responds to your letter regarding a head restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affadavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be "federally approved as an after-market safety product." As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information. The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product. Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code. In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202. Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel
Enclosures /ref:202 d:1/15/92 |
1992 |
ID: 11-005927 K.Ro (Std. No. 135)OpenMr. Kevin Ro National Manager, Technical & Regulatory Affairs, Safety Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 601 13th St. NW, Suite 910 South Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Ro: This letter responds to your request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota). You state that Toyota is currently developing an electric vehicle (EV) that falls within the applicability of FMVSS No. 135. You would like confirmation of your interpretation that the phrase accelerate as rapidly as possible found within the test procedure of the standard takes account of a thermal protection feature in an EV battery system. The issue raised by your letter is addressed below. Among the performance requirements for light vehicle brake systems in FMVSS No. 135 is a hot performance test. Prior to conducting that test, there is a procedure, contained in S7.13 of FMVSS No. 135, for conducting heating snubs, which are designed to heat the brakes for the test. As set forth in the test procedure in S7.13.3, the vehicle is driven at an initial speed of 120 km/h (74.6 mph) or 80 percent of the vehicles maximum speed, whichever is slower. The brakes are then applied to slow the vehicle to one-half the initial speed at a constant deceleration rate of 3.0 m/s2 (9.8 fps2). The vehicle is then accelerated back to the initial speed, and the procedure is repeated for 15 snubs. Immediately after the completion of this procedure, the hot performance test is conducted. Your question relates to acceleration of the vehicle back to the initial speed. The pertinent provisions of S7.13.3 are set forth below: S7.13.3 Test conditions and procedures. (f) Time interval: Maintain an interval of 45 seconds between the start of brake applications (snubs). (g) Accelerate as rapidly as possible to the initial test speed immediately after each snub. (Emphasis added). You note that, with EV battery systems, greater power discharge results in higher operating temperature. You also note that Toyotas EV battery system is thermally regulated; that is, when the internal temperature exceeds a pre-defined limit, the vehicles speed is limited to prevent thermal damage to the system. You state that Toyotas EV is capable of achieving the initial test speed for all 15 high-speed snubs within the 45-second interval specified in S7.13.3(f). However, because of the thermal protection feature, the vehicle may not be able to attain the initial test speed for 15 consecutive snubs within 45 second intervals if the vehicle is accelerated at wide open throttle (WOT). You state that the only way to complete testing is to keep the throttle at less than WOT. You state that Toyota believes that it is within the language and intent of FMVSS No. 135 to interpret S7.13.3(g) to mean that the vehicle must be accelerated as rapidly as the motor will permit after each snub to the required test speed within the specified time interval and complete the testing. In considering your question, we note S7.13.1 sets forth the purpose of the heating snubs, which is to heat up the brakes in preparation for the hot performance test which follows immediately. The test procedure does not specify the throttle position. However, it does specify the time interval between the start of snubs and states that the vehicle is accelerated as rapidly as possible to the initial test speed immediately after each snub. In conducting the heating snubs, we would ordinarily accelerate a vehicle as rapidly as possible during each acceleration specified for this test. Although the manner in which the vehicle is accelerated as rapidly as possible is not specified in the regulatory text, in practice this is generally done with a full application of the accelerator pedal. For most vehicles, the rate of acceleration in the earlier of the 15 accelerations would not affect the ability of the vehicle to achieve the specified test speed in later accelerations. We understand your letter to indicate that when some electric vehicles are tested under this procedure, the rate of acceleration in the earlier accelerations may affect the ability of the vehicle to achieve the specified initial test speed in later accelerations, due to heat build-up and the thermal protection feature. In this specific situation, we agree that the language as rapidly as possible in S7.13.3(g) should be interpreted in the context of the necessity of the vehicles being able to complete the test sequence at the specified initial speed and within the 45-second time intervals between snubs. This means that we would complete the S7.13 test sequence by accelerating the vehicle as rapidly as possible, consistent with the need to allow the test sequence to be completed, provided each acceleration could be completed within the 45-second time interval between snubs. In the case of the vehicle that you describe, the vehicle may not be accelerated at wide open throttle for each acceleration. In heating up the brakes in preparation for the hot performance test, the key factors in achieving proper heating are the test speed of the vehicle at the beginning of each snub and the time interval between snubs (along with the snubs themselves). This performance test is not intended to test a vehicles acceleration capability. If higher rates of acceleration for the earlier accelerations have the effect of preventing the vehicle from achieving the specified initial test speed in later accelerations within the 45-second time interval, the brakes would not be appropriately heated. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Standard No. 135 Dated: 7/5/12 |
2012 |
ID: nht81-2.47OpenDATE: 07/14/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Firestone Tire Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, describing a situation in which a railroad car full of new tires caught on fire. As a result of the damage caused to the tires by the fire, Firestone's quality control staff determined that the tires could no longer be certified as safe for highway use. The railroad company has refused to pay your claim for damage to the tires unless Firestone releases the damaged tires to the railroad company. You stated that the railroad company will either sell the tires through its salvage outlets or use the tires on company vehicles. You ask whether you can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad company. If Firestone releases the tires and the railroad company sells the tires or uses them on the public roads, both Firestone and the railroad company would violate an express provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) ("the Safety Act"). Therefore, you can rightfully withhold the tires from the railroad company. Your letter did not indicate whether the damaged tires were tires for passenger cars or tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. In either case, the tire manufacturer is required to certify that each tire fully complies with certain marking requirements and with specified performance requirements (resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance) of Safety Standard No. 109 in the case of passenger car tires (49 CFR @ 571.109) or of Safety Standard No. 119 for tires other than passenger car tires (49 CFR @ 571.119). This certification is made by the manufacturer by molding the letters "DOT" into the sidewall of the tire. As a result of the damage to this particular shipment of tires, your company has determined that this certification is no longer valid. This determination obligates Firestone to remove the "DOT" symbol from the sidewall of the tires. Without the "DOT" symbol, these tires would clearly not comply with the requirements of either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). provides: No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . . Firestone would violate this prohibition if it were to deliver tires to the railroad company which were not certified as complying with the appropriate safety standard. The railroad company would violate this prohibition if it sold or offered to sell uncertified tires, or if uncertified tires were used by the company on the public roads (introduction in interstate commerce). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies penalties of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108, and each tire delivered by Firestone or sold or used by the railroad company would constitute a separate violation of section 108. Section 109 specifies that the maximum civil penalty which can be imposed for a series of related violations, which this would be, is $ 800,000 for each violator. You indicated that Firestone would not release the damaged tires for use in any case, because of the potential safety hazard. I hope that this response reinforces that position. Should you need any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please show this letter to the interested railroad company so that it will realize the serious nature of its contemplated actions. SINCERELY, Firestone TIRE COMPANY June 24, 1981 The National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Attention: Steven Kratzke Dear Mr. Kratzke: Pursuant to our phone conversation this morning, we would appreciate hearing from you and the National Highway Safety Administration as to the disposition to be made on tires which have been exposed to fire while in transit. We experience approximately five of these situations per year and recently we've experienced an incident where the carrier is demanding that we release to them the salvage. In this particular incident, the carload of 1,596 tires was shipped from our Decatur, Illinois Plant back in June of 1979. Enroute the carrier noticed a missing hasp and ordered the car confined to its repair track until a new hasp could be affixed to the car. In the process of welding the hasp on to the car a small fire started which the carrier's employees quickly extinguished. After a break for lunch and the subsequent return from lunch the car was again found ablaze. The car was again extinguished by both the railroad's employees and the local fire department. Our Quality Control people inspected the tires and found them to be in a condition not suitable for highway use. The railroad retained outside experts in this area and our company likewise retained experts to evaluate the condition of these tires to confirm basically what our Quality Control people originally decided. Both these outside firms cannot guarantee the safety of these tires. The railroad has refused to pay our claim unless we release these tires to them to be salvaged through their salvage outlets to the public or for use on their own company vehicles. We find this railroad's request in total disregard of public safety. We would appreciate your confirming in writing basically how the National Highway Safety Administration feels about this and whether or not a manufacturer of tires, such as Firestone is correct in wanting to scrap these tires in such a manner that they are never used on the highway. We are confirming at this time that we have no intentions of releasing these tires to this particular railroad but would appreciate your decision as to whether or not we can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad for their salvaging, which in the end will hopefully produce a settlement from the railroad for the value of these tires which they destroyed. Thank you. C. L. BIDDLE SUPERVISOR OF CLAIMS GENERAL TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT |
|
ID: 20980.drnOpenMr. Martin Cosgrove, Jr. RE: 1990 Blue Bird Dear Mr. Cosgrove: This responds to your letter asking whether your school board may permit a contractor to use the above-described bus to transport students to and from local schools. As explained below, the question you ask is a matter that is answered by State law. Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how Louisiana children must be transported. With your letter, you provided a photograph of the vehicle's certification label, showing that the vehicle manufacturer, Blue Bird Body Company, has classified the vehicle as a "bus." You also enclose a copy of an October 21, 1999 letter from Mr. Jack Kemp, Technical Coordinator of Blue Bird, stating "Unit F093742 was certified to the original owner as a non-school bus." This information indicates that the vehicle in question is a bus, and was not certified as a school bus. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you said that the contractor, Mr. Joseph Guidry, bought the bus in question as a used vehicle in 1997. The vehicle was certified by its manufacturer in 1990 as conforming to safety standards applicable to a bus, not a school bus. Under Federal law, a dealer would have been prohibited from selling this vehicle, when new, for transporting students. However, because our regulations only apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the used bus was not required to be certified to our school bus safety standards when it was sold to Mr. Guidry. Because our school bus regulations apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported. Correspondence enclosed with your letter identified two buses, a non-school bus and a school bus, Blue Bird Body Nos. FO93742 and FO93980, respectively. Our records indicate and a Blue Bird representative confirmed that the school bus is covered by the two safety recalls described below. Blue Bird records indicate that neither recall has been performed on this school bus. We urge you to have the remedies performed as soon as possible. There will be no charge to either the school district or the contractor.
The Blue Bird representative stated that the non-school bus was ordered and manufactured by Blue Bird with many items of school bus equipment, including body structure, seating, occupant restraining barriers, hand rails, and a protective cage surrounding the fuel tank. Consequently, this vehicle is likely to have the same problems as described above. He suggested that the owner of both vehicles (presumably Mr. Guidry) contact Mr. Bill Coleman, Blue Bird's Recall Administrator on (912) 822-2242 to make arrangements for the recall remedies to be performed and to discuss what should be done with respect to the non-school bus. In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash. I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.